Br8inend Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Which would lead to a lot more people dying The reason people have a lot of kids in the third world is because of the comparatively low survival rate, and because more kids makes it more likely there will be someone to look after them when they are older. Will you be giving them the money to survive without many kids? Nowt to do with survival rates at all, its to do with not having contraception or any perceived need for it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Nowt to do with survival rates at all, its to do with not having contraception or any perceived need for it.. On that point, we need to start pressurising the Catholic Church, which has spread the doctrine of "no contraception of any kind" across three-quarters of the globe or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 On that point, we need to start pressurising the Catholic Church, which has spread the doctrine of "no contraception of any kind" across three-quarters of the globe or more. Some of whom spread the lie that condoms are no protection against HIV... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Some of whom spread the lie that condoms are no protection against HIV... I can't say that isn't true, but the Catholics I've heard on the subject have only gone so far as to say that sex with a condom is not 100% protection, and that only abstinence offers that. And they're right, but it's not helping the issue because people will continue to have sex. Giving them contraception is the best available method of cutting down on the deaths from AIDS, because total abstinence is not an available method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 (edited) I can't say that isn't true, but the Catholics I've heard on the subject have only gone so far as to say that sex with a condom is not 100% protection, and that only abstinence offers that. And they're right, but it's not helping the issue because people will continue to have sex. Giving them contraception is the best available method of cutting down on the deaths from AIDS, because total abstinence is not an available method. This is from the Catholic.org website The Vatican has not budged. Condoms thwart conception; therefore, by the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, their use is proscribed. End of debate. In a 2003 Vatican document titled Family Values Versus Safe Sex, the use of condoms in HIV-prevention programs was forcefully rejected: The Catholic bishops of South Africa, Botswana, and Swaziland categorically regard the widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms as an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV/AIDS for the following reasons. The use of condoms goes against human dignity. Condoms change the beautiful act of love into a selfish search for pleasure-while rejecting responsibility. Condoms do not guarantee protection against HIV/AIDS. Condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has elaborated on the latter point: “In the case of the AIDS virus, which is around 450 times smaller than the sperm cell, the condom’s latex material obviously gives much less security... to talk of condoms as ‘safe sex’ is a form of Russian roulette.” Cardinal Trujillo called on ministries of health to require “a warning, that the condom is not safe” on packages distributed worldwide. And then there's this freak of an archbishop who claimed that some condoms are manufactured with the HIV virus in them http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10516 While we're on the subject of dangerous maniacs, anyone remember the Front National in France (Marseilles, I think) offering extra financial incentives to white people for having babies? Edited November 26, 2009 by TeaFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 7, 2010 Author Share Posted March 7, 2010 .... deleted for another place, apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 When I was a kid, the world's population was half what it is now. Strangely enough, I didn't go to school wearing just a vest, I had a jumper as well. More than one in fact. And we were not well off! A lot of those jumpers were made in the UK as well (remember the likes of SR Gents?) Plus an increase of 13p an hour is not gong to turn an £8 jumper into a £24 jumper, even if the worker only produced 1 jumper an hour. You wouldn't get very far in business with maths like that. The economics is interesting. It suggests the solution has to be us all demanding higher wages for workers in the third world so their standard of living improves such that they don't need or want the larger famillies they require when they are poor as an investment for their own futures in supporting them in old age. It is only by striving for global equality and human rights the economics will change such that population will be controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CottonTop Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) All we need is a good pandemic of something deadly and that will knock the population down a bit. I remember reading an article several years ago that stated the world is prime for a deadly pandemic and with travel being what it is these days, it would spread rapidly across the globe. Nature has a way of dealing with these things but Swine Flu clearly wasn't it. It will be frightening when it does happen but think how much more space there will be for the survivors after a bunch of us have kicked the bucket. Edited March 7, 2010 by CottonTop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalcedony Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Saw another thread regarding all the green space in sheffield being built on...if people stopped having kids then we wouldnt have to keep building on our green belt....another point to all this is that people should live to there means....if your skint,then dont have a bigger family cos youll be even more skint by the time the missis has had another few years off work then does a bit of part time after that......people moan about people claiming jobseakers allowence...why dont they complain about working people that claim child tax credits??? It all comes from the same pot.....the economy would be in a lot better condition if women spent more time earning a wage than being at home bringing the multiple children up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 we should stop people who cant afford it , why should hard working couple suffer, great encourgement for the lazy,pretend sick people who post here all the time but cant be brother to get a job not to have something they cant afford What an incredibly apt name you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now